I have ample space to set up antennas (a ham's dream land) with many very tall trees (100 foot plus). I am wondering what works best for 160 meters, dipole, inverted V, or a vertical.
Opinions?
Opinions?
160 Meter Antenna
- Thread starter n8zcc
- Start date
- Status
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
Rombic?sp four sided antenna fed with ladder line, you have the realestate for it. Met a ham that had a full size one for 160 and could work most anyone with 100w or less.
Rombic?sp four sided antenna fed with ladder line, you have the realestate for it. Met a ham that had a full size one for 160 and could work most anyone with 100w or less.
jhooten
Member
Best for what? DX, Local, or something else.
kayn1n32008
ØÆSØ Say it, say 'ENCRYPTION'
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (BlackBerry; U; BlackBerry 9780; en-US) AppleWebKit/534.8+ (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/6.0.0.600 Mobile Safari/534.8+)
DX for sure, he could work the south pole with 100w from VE7 land
DX for sure, he could work the south pole with 100w from VE7 land
An inverted 'V' antenna has tha benefit of only needing one support. A typical dipole usually needs two supports. Other than that, they are both 1/2 wave length antennas and will perform comparably. A 1/4 wave vertical is something like 120 - 130 feet tall unless you load it. With a 100 foot support it should perform well. But there's a 'catch' to it. It needs a very well done ground radial system, lots of wire in the dirt, usually not very easy to do, takes time.
Which would be better than the other? How lucky are you at flipping a coin? That's about what it amounts to, Momma Nature's propagation will determine the winner most times. Or how about one horizontal antenna and one vertical? That would give you a viable choice.
- 'Doc
Which would be better than the other? How lucky are you at flipping a coin? That's about what it amounts to, Momma Nature's propagation will determine the winner most times. Or how about one horizontal antenna and one vertical? That would give you a viable choice.
- 'Doc
For 160m, you should put up an inverted V -- but not for DX. Instead, you should put it up because you can. Tons of us can't because we don't have 100' supports and tons of real estate. Put a V up with a 100' apex and it'll work nicely stateside. It typically won't be as noisy a vertical.
For DX and to naill the Western US [but mainly for DX], you should put up a 1/4w vertical or an inverted L. Both require a serious ground system [consisting of many long radials] to do the job effectively. But it'll get you enough DX that you'll realize you need something better for receive. [Receive on 160m is noisy - hard to hear DX on a vert]. For that you want to go with a beverage, a K9AY loop, or some other low noise / no gain antenna for receive.
I'd say put up an inverted L with as much of it vertical as possible (using one of those nice tall trees for support) and then the rest extending out horizontally at the top. Lay down a dozen to many dozen radials and you'll be good to go. You could even use the same base / radial system and have two parallel wires up, one for 80m and one for 160m.
Keep in mind this is coming from someone who never built an inverted L or a 160m 1/4w vert or installed a serious ground system. But, because one day I'd like to have the property to do it, I do a lot of reading about it.
Check out the topband list - Topband Info Page
The guys on the topband list are the serious 160m DXers and contesters.
Mike
For DX and to naill the Western US [but mainly for DX], you should put up a 1/4w vertical or an inverted L. Both require a serious ground system [consisting of many long radials] to do the job effectively. But it'll get you enough DX that you'll realize you need something better for receive. [Receive on 160m is noisy - hard to hear DX on a vert]. For that you want to go with a beverage, a K9AY loop, or some other low noise / no gain antenna for receive.
I'd say put up an inverted L with as much of it vertical as possible (using one of those nice tall trees for support) and then the rest extending out horizontally at the top. Lay down a dozen to many dozen radials and you'll be good to go. You could even use the same base / radial system and have two parallel wires up, one for 80m and one for 160m.
Keep in mind this is coming from someone who never built an inverted L or a 160m 1/4w vert or installed a serious ground system. But, because one day I'd like to have the property to do it, I do a lot of reading about it.
Check out the topband list - Topband Info Page
The guys on the topband list are the serious 160m DXers and contesters.
Mike
I would avoid a vertical or other single ended antenna primarily because of the extent of the ground system it would need to perform properly. Unless you're up to putting up a radial ground system, you're better off with a balanced antenna like a dipole or inverted vee. I use a shortened inverted vee on 160 and get pretty decent results. It was cheap, easy, and performance outpaces the effort needed to put it up by a wide margin.
thomast77
Member
An Inverted L or a horizontal loop
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_1_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9B206 Safari/7534.48.3)
Lots of land? Hmmm... how about a rhombic array? Had them in the Army and they are spectacular performers. Four of 'Em arrayed 45 degrees apart in their directivity. Antenna switch to select which array you wanted.
Lots of land? Hmmm... how about a rhombic array? Had them in the Army and they are spectacular performers. Four of 'Em arrayed 45 degrees apart in their directivity. Antenna switch to select which array you wanted.
prcguy
Member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2006
- Messages
- 17,994
- Reaction score
- 13,622
I think mtindor has pretty much nailed it with good advice. A Rhombic is a fixed, point to point antenna and needs to be many wavelengths long and close to a half or one wavelength high to achieve low takeoff angles.
A small Rhombic of maybe 3 wavelengths on 160m would be about 1,500ft long and either 260ft or 520ft high. Probably not practical for the OP and what if he accidentally builds it pointing in a direction with little 160m users, how is he going to re-point it?
A major problem with dipoles on 160m is getting them high enough and a 100ft flat top is a great NVIS antenna but DX will not be its strong point. An inverted V with an apex at 100ft is a good start but if the ends droop very much towards the ground the efficiency will also start tapering off.
I think a 1/4 wave vertical with a modest ground system would be reasonable to make and a separate receive antenna could supplement it if the noise pickup is excessive. You could make a vertical of whatever height the supports will allow then instead of making it an L, make it a T with the top of the T becoming a large capacity hat.
With maybe an 80ft vertical wire and long enough supports, the T could be large enough to resonate on 160 without any loading of the vertical element. The T might end up being 50-75ft wide but as long as its symmetrical its a capacity hat and the antenna will be purely vertical polarized.
A ground system of 60 to 120 full 1/4 wave long ground radials would be nice but 30 radials maybe 60-75ft long can get you much of the way to full size performance. Supplementing the radials with a few rolls of 3 or 4ft wide chicken wire goes a long way to reduce ground resistance. See this great article by Rob Sherwood on the subject: http://www.sherweng.com/documents/GroundScreen-sm.pdf
prcguy
A small Rhombic of maybe 3 wavelengths on 160m would be about 1,500ft long and either 260ft or 520ft high. Probably not practical for the OP and what if he accidentally builds it pointing in a direction with little 160m users, how is he going to re-point it?
A major problem with dipoles on 160m is getting them high enough and a 100ft flat top is a great NVIS antenna but DX will not be its strong point. An inverted V with an apex at 100ft is a good start but if the ends droop very much towards the ground the efficiency will also start tapering off.
I think a 1/4 wave vertical with a modest ground system would be reasonable to make and a separate receive antenna could supplement it if the noise pickup is excessive. You could make a vertical of whatever height the supports will allow then instead of making it an L, make it a T with the top of the T becoming a large capacity hat.
With maybe an 80ft vertical wire and long enough supports, the T could be large enough to resonate on 160 without any loading of the vertical element. The T might end up being 50-75ft wide but as long as its symmetrical its a capacity hat and the antenna will be purely vertical polarized.
A ground system of 60 to 120 full 1/4 wave long ground radials would be nice but 30 radials maybe 60-75ft long can get you much of the way to full size performance. Supplementing the radials with a few rolls of 3 or 4ft wide chicken wire goes a long way to reduce ground resistance. See this great article by Rob Sherwood on the subject: http://www.sherweng.com/documents/GroundScreen-sm.pdf
prcguy
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.5; en-us; SCH-I405 4G Build/EI2) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
prcguy - Not one rhombic. Four of them to take care of the directional problem. OP wrote he had lots of land ;-)
prcguy - Not one rhombic. Four of them to take care of the directional problem. OP wrote he had lots of land ;-)
Wow, lots of good advise, thanks guys.
I do wonder why no one has mentioned a Windom and I can't seem to find any reasonable reviews on the net. I'm suspicious of them because the web sites that sell them appear to over market them with the hype.
I remember what my Dad taught me about if it sounds to good to be true...
I do wonder why no one has mentioned a Windom and I can't seem to find any reasonable reviews on the net. I'm suspicious of them because the web sites that sell them appear to over market them with the hype.
I remember what my Dad taught me about if it sounds to good to be true...
Basement radiator
If you got the room for a full wave loop, not only will it play nice on 160, it will also load well for 80 and 40.
The one I ran was (mostly) square, about 60' up. Not above all the trees, but did the job. Morning QSO's about 300-500 miles were typical. Worked both coast from Detroit from time to time when there was snow or a real good ground soaking. I don't think I ever got overseas with it.
If you got the room for a full wave loop, not only will it play nice on 160, it will also load well for 80 and 40.
The one I ran was (mostly) square, about 60' up. Not above all the trees, but did the job. Morning QSO's about 300-500 miles were typical. Worked both coast from Detroit from time to time when there was snow or a real good ground soaking. I don't think I ever got overseas with it.
N8ZCC,
Most of the so called Windom antennas are not Windoms but OCF antennas. A Windom is a sort of inverted 'L' with a 'tail' on it's back end. They are a single wire fed antenna worked against a good ground system. They are not 'miracle' antennas by any means and in fact have a few characteristics that are aggravating. As in RFI generators for nearby electronics.
Wanna try one? Do so!
- 'Doc
Most of the so called Windom antennas are not Windoms but OCF antennas. A Windom is a sort of inverted 'L' with a 'tail' on it's back end. They are a single wire fed antenna worked against a good ground system. They are not 'miracle' antennas by any means and in fact have a few characteristics that are aggravating. As in RFI generators for nearby electronics.
Wanna try one? Do so!
- 'Doc
I don't think I'm going to try one, not after what you said.
I'm going to put up an inverted V and see what happens. My Wireman order just arrived so I'll build a dipole and, if the weather allows, put it up this week end. If this works out well, I'll fat top it and see if I can make it across the Atlantic.
I'm still looking into a loop and how (or what trees) to get it up in the air.
I probably worded that reply a bit too 'drastically', I honestly don't mean to discourage you trying a Windom antenna. I can tell you that from experience, my one attempt at using one was a disaster. I can also tell you that it's biggest problem was the inadequate ground system I used, as in almost non-existant! Any 'unbalanced' antenna requires a good 'ground'/counterpoise, the bigger the better. In the case or ground radials, that means lots of them and as long as is possible. (Copper plating the dirt for a mile around the antenna is about as good as it can get! Also totally impractical, right? Oh well.)
- 'Doc
(Paint the @#$ thing pink! That always helps...)
- 'Doc
(Paint the @#$ thing pink! That always helps...)
The top-loaded T vertical is my favorite. I cut it in half to make the vertical element about 1/8th wave, and the top loading takes care of the rest (each leg of the T also about 1/8th wave). As for radials, they are also 1/8 wave long or thereabouts. Start with 2 radials in the same plane as the upper top-loaded horizontal elements. The top loading not only loads the 1/8th wave vertical section, but also brings the current equally into the vertical portion, and also helps lessen the grounding requirements. Use a choke at the feedpoint. The feedpoint can be at the junction of the two bottom radials and the vertical T, or anywhere you want in the vertical part if you want to play with impedances.
See N6LF's great article about the "Lazy-H" vertical under the "Elevated Radial Verticals" section about half-way down the page. I scale these down to the higher freqs often.
Antennas By N6LF:
Small height, less radial length, and about 0.3db peak gain down from a perfect quarter-wave. Not bad. And as Rudy notes, you can think of it as a loaded dipole with capacity hats turned vertically, and fed at the end of the radiating section.
Last edited by a moderator:
KR4BD
Member
If you don't mind spending a few extra dollars for a "ready made" antenna, I have found that Alpha Delta's DX-A works great on 160 --- IF YOU INSTALL IT PER THE INSTRUCTIONS. You must have a 40-50 foot tower with a triband beam on it (capacity hat). The DX-A is a twin-slopper for 40-80 and 160. I live on a city lot (less than 1/3 acre) with a tower in the middle of the lot. On 160, I've Confirmed all 50 states (WAS) and about 35 countries with this antenna running 500 watts or less (mostly LESS). I was also able to get 5 Band DXCC from its performance on 40 and 80 meters. This antenna really DOES perform for what it is.
Token
Member
I have 3 antennas specifically on 160m. One Inverted V, one 2 element wire beam, and one full wave Skyloop. Because of the very high winds we get here none of them are up quite as high as they should be but all 3 work pretty well.
The Inverted V, although a fine antenna, actually does not get used much for transmitting anymore, I find the Skyloop works as well or better, so the V is actually connected to a general coverage receiver more than to a transmitter. For you Perseus remote users out there, if you have ever connected to my Perseus node in the Mojave Desert it was probably on this antenna.
The wire 2 element beam works very well, but since it cannot change direction I only use it for contacts in the beam. Being on the west coast I pointed it so that it points at about NY, that gets the majority of the US in the beam quite well. I would not recommend it as an "only" 160M antenna. It was actually just a fun project to put up, so I could say I had a beam on 160
My "go to" antenna on 160 is the full wave Skyloop. Mine is a bit low, only about 55 feet high. But if you have the room and can lay out a square a little over 135 feet on a side I think this is one of the lowest noise, best performing antennas you can have on 160. It is certainly one of the best "general purpose" 160 antennas I have personally tried.
Rhombics are great also, if you have the room and want to try to do one right. I have three Rhombics here, but because of size constraints (my largest is 450 feet apex to apex, my smallest is 310 feet) none of mine are much good (I mean highly directional with reasonable gain and dependable patterns) below about 5 MHz. While terminated Rhombics are directional there are a couple of ways to handle getting some other patterns out of them. All of mine have relays at the terminated end. I can select terminated, and get a directional pattern, I can select unterminated and get a bidirectional pattern, and I can select shorted, giving a roughly omni pattern by making a bigger version of the Skyloop, makes a pretty good MW BCB RX antenna.
Try the Skyloop, you probably will not be unhappy.
T!
The Inverted V, although a fine antenna, actually does not get used much for transmitting anymore, I find the Skyloop works as well or better, so the V is actually connected to a general coverage receiver more than to a transmitter. For you Perseus remote users out there, if you have ever connected to my Perseus node in the Mojave Desert it was probably on this antenna.
The wire 2 element beam works very well, but since it cannot change direction I only use it for contacts in the beam. Being on the west coast I pointed it so that it points at about NY, that gets the majority of the US in the beam quite well. I would not recommend it as an "only" 160M antenna. It was actually just a fun project to put up, so I could say I had a beam on 160
My "go to" antenna on 160 is the full wave Skyloop. Mine is a bit low, only about 55 feet high. But if you have the room and can lay out a square a little over 135 feet on a side I think this is one of the lowest noise, best performing antennas you can have on 160. It is certainly one of the best "general purpose" 160 antennas I have personally tried.
Rhombics are great also, if you have the room and want to try to do one right. I have three Rhombics here, but because of size constraints (my largest is 450 feet apex to apex, my smallest is 310 feet) none of mine are much good (I mean highly directional with reasonable gain and dependable patterns) below about 5 MHz. While terminated Rhombics are directional there are a couple of ways to handle getting some other patterns out of them. All of mine have relays at the terminated end. I can select terminated, and get a directional pattern, I can select unterminated and get a bidirectional pattern, and I can select shorted, giving a roughly omni pattern by making a bigger version of the Skyloop, makes a pretty good MW BCB RX antenna.
Try the Skyloop, you probably will not be unhappy.
T!
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
